Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025WRIA/14018/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant teacher challenged his repatriation to his earlier school under the intra-district voluntary transfer policy, contending the first transfer round had closed on 30.6.2025 and the later circulars did not apply to him. The Court found the repatriation prima facie unsustainable, stayed it, and called for counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the order dated 15.10.2025 (repatriation) stayed as regards the petitioner until further orders; counter affidavit directed.

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14018 of 2025

Anil Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 3 Others	Deptt. Of Basic Edu. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Raghvendra P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Ravi Prakash Yadav

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Mohammad Siraz, advocate, holding brief of Mr. Raghvendra P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for State, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶10

The challenge is laid to the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer whereby the petitioner was repatriated on his place of posting from where he was transferred in pursuant to the Government Order dated 16.6.2025.

¶11

Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 16.6.2025, a policy has been introduced in pursuant to the U.P. Right to Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2011') for intra-district transfer of the Assistant Teachers of Basic Education Department, and thereafter, vide the circular dated 26.6.2025, the schedule was provided to give effect to the voluntary transfer of teachers during the period 28.6.2025 to 30.6.2025 and as per the circular, the petitioner was relieved from his previous schools and was sent to their respective place of postings and he was working on his transferred place of posting, for last more than five months and is getting salary.

¶12

He further argued that after the first round of the voluntary transfer proceedings completed on 30.6.2025 by Circular dated 22.7.2025, the second round of voluntary transfer and adjustment of teachers who had not

¶13

WRIA No. 14018 of 2025

¶14

¶15

earlier opted or applied, were given opportunity. He submitted that clarificatory order was issued by the respondent no.2 with respect to second round of transfer for relieving of teachers. He submitted that orders dated 22.07.2025 and 8.8.2025 pertains to voluntary transfer and adjustment of teachers in the second round and that does not cover the transfer, which has already been given effect to by virtue of the circular of first round. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the circular dated 22.7.2025, which in itself is clarificatory that the first round of transfer proceedings have been completed on 30.6.2025 and this is admittedly second round of voluntary transfer. He added that in fact, it is the District Basic Education Officer who has misinterpreted the Circular dated 8.8.2025 though the same is not applicable in the case of the present petitioner.

¶16

Adding his arguments, he submitted that so far as one of the petitioners is concerned, the chart itself is evident to show that he is being transferred from new place of posting to earlier place of posting where there would be more than one teacher then the said school would not remain with the sole teacher. He submitted that in fact, the anomaly arose because of the misinterpretation of the circular dated 8.8.2025 and, therefore, the order dated 15.10.2025 is erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the U.P. Basic Education Board has opposed the contention aforesaid but he has failed to contradict the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the first round of proceedings of voluntary transfer has been undertaken and completed on 30.6.2025, it was not open for the respondents to reconsider the transfer of the petitioner, without there being any further option for voluntary transfer or adjustment.

¶18

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is prima facie apparent that the first round of transfer as per the Circular dated 16.6.2025 was completed on 30.6.2025 and the same also emerges from the Circular dated 22.7.2025 as the authorities were fully aware that the first round of transfer was over and, therefore, reconsidering the transfer without any option given by the petitioner further would amount to reviewing its earlier order, without being any order or circular. In this view of the matter, it prima facie reveals that the District Basic Education Officer is mistaken while interpreting the orders dated 22.7.2025 and 8.8.2025, thus, matter requires consideration.

¶19

WRIA No. 14018 of 2025

¶20

¶21

Let the counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶22

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶23

List this matter along with Writ-A No.12368 of 2025 in second week of December 2025.

¶24

Until further orders, the orders dated 15.10.2025 passed by the respondent nos. 4 respectively, shall remain stayed so far as the present petitioner is concerned.

¶25

December 4, 2025

¶26

Mayank

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasir Ali Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mitesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Surya Prasad Chaudhry Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Hargovind Bhargava vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and another